Pilot Training

This wont be what anyone wants to hear, but I do think that pilot training is something fairly dead in the water for a division. This sort of activity is probably more of interest in the VA world, but even there it remains a struggle to find people willing to help.

If ATC joined with a C1 rating, what incentive would there be to train to get a C3 when they could do anything anyway? Would anyone really be bothered to mentor?

I think it will always remain niche, small, and very difficult to properly mobilise as things stand. I don't think you should be blaming yourself Darren, you merely had a break from flogging the already dead horse.

Edited August 9 by Callum McLoughlin

18 minutes ago, Callum McLoughlin said:

This wont be what anyone wants to hear, but I do think that pilot training is something fairly dead in the water for a division. This sort of activity is probably more of interest in the VA world, but even there it remains a struggle to find people willing to help.

If ATC joined with a C1 rating, what incentive would there be to train to get a C3 when they could do anything anyway? Would anyone really be bothered to mentor?

I think it will always remain niche, small, and very difficult to properly mobilise as things stand. I don't think you should be blaming yourself Darren, you merely had a break from flogging the already dead horse.

I think you have a good point there Callum. The value proposition of the pilot ratings has, for a long time now, been pretty non-existent compared to ATC training. That being said, my opinion is that initiatives like TFP (the VATGER equivalent, BVA's WINGS, etc) are the way forward for delivering a consistent and introductory standard for pilots on the network. While I didn't mention too much of it in my post, I am treating TFP at the same level of importance (if not more) than I am with the P1 and P2 ratings. My hope is that more divisions and VAs create similar programs as that is how we can reach pilots on the network.

You also raise a very good point about the positioning of the pilot ratings. They offer nothing in terms of progression, only knowledge gain. However they way they are "marketed" doesn't quite match that. The same goes for teaching these courses - think of the difference between an OJTI in ATC versus a flight instructor, where one is an extension of a career and the other is (usually) merely a stepping stone. This, however, is more a topic of discussion for the existence and purpose of pilot ratings at a network level, a discussion which some of our team and I partake in directly with .net.

Whether pilot training in VATSIM UK is a dead horse or lost cause, that is up to the opinion people want to have. I still believe that, in a decent capacity, we can continue to operate and deliver high quality training. While it is quite a stretch to think we can compete with the division's ATC training scheme (that would be a great day!), I do believe we have relevance and purpose as a department.

As for blaming myself, I do realize I am taking a bit of a knock on the chin in the above post. My view is this: as the director of the department, I take the ultimate responsibility for everything that happens, good or bad. Hopefully you could glean from my post that I'm not putting myself in a rut for it. I want to learn and move on. 🙂

My 5p:

My personal experience is that the Pilot Training initiative is fantastic.
Without exception my tutors for both P1 and P2 have been excellent and it has been an enjoyable and worthwhile experience.

Sure, I'd love to have sessions more frequently, but, hey, I understand we all have a life.

I'll be putting myself forward to pay back!

I echo Richard Schunemann's comment about TFP - my experience was also excellent.  I joined VATSIM more or less able to fly my aircraft, but the combination of adding real time comms and the gaps in my knowledge left me with less confidence than I might have wished for.  The learning curve isn't that bad, but with so much information out there, there's a lot to pick through looking for good quality.

I really appreciated the mentors who spared me their time (and indeed everyone else who patiently explained things along the way) and as a consequence would offer a couple of suggestions:

1) While the .net standard that we derive from sets a really low bar to entry, I think there needs to be more emphasis on pilots putting thrmselves through something like TFP at the beginning of their 'careers'.  We all see the considerable commitment that controllers make to progress beyond observer slots and the minimum standard of pilot should at least try to match it in quality.  This is far wider than the UK I know, but that training material for TFP is a huge asset and I think it should be more easily available, not just while students are self-enrolled, but on an ongoing basis for UK pilots.

2) While in TFP, there was one (excellent) group flight.  I'd love to see more, even on a weekly basis if possible, so that people learning the ropes can learn by example in all phases of the same flight.  Open them up to interested others and perhaps we'll see some additional help come forward?

I've no criticism for anything here, at whatever point you all consider I'm good enough I'd also love to help others out and put something back in.  I do that within my friend group and hopefully more will find their way in (albeit to the US region).